Trial reportBMJ open2026
Implementing multi-component intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care of rural China: a qualitative process evaluation of the trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe overuse of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in primary healthcare in rural China is a particular challenge and is highly related to antibiotic resistance. Our research team designed a multi-component intervention focusing predominantly on health practitioners to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in rural communities of China. The effects of the intervention were evaluated through a randomised controlled trial. This study was conducted alongside the trial to develop a contextualised understanding of the implementation of the intervention and related influencing factors.
designQualitative process study nested in a randomised controlled trial, including observation and semi-structured interviews.
settingPrimary healthcare in rural China.
participants27 health practitioners from township health centres assigned to the intervention arm.
interventionA complex intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in rural communities of China, which includes the following components: training for health practitioners, a public letter of commitment, patient leaflets, a decision support system and a peer support group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. ANALYSIS: Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsThe overall multi-component intervention was described as useful in reducing antibiotic prescribing, with a particularly high acceptance and use of patient leaflets and the public letter of commitment among health practitioners. There were mixed views on the decision support system and peer support group. Practitioners reported usability-related barriers to using the decision support system during consultations. Practitioners did not understand the role or benefits of the peer support group and found it difficult to initiate group discussions, due to the lack of any existing clinical team at the primary care level.
conclusionsThe multi-component intervention appears to be acceptable and useful in primary healthcare in rural China. Successful implementation requires a comprehensive understanding of the contextual characteristics of the setting. Interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in China in the future could consider wider stakeholders including patients, retail pharmacies and health authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30652037 (01/12/2020).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.